Talk:Agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan respecting the District of Zanghezour

Agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan respecting the District of Zanghezour has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: November 5, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Armenia Low‑importance

	Agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan respecting the District of Zanghezour is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Azerbaijan Low‑importance

	Azerbaijan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan respecting the District of Zanghezour appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 December 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that after signing a peace agreement in 1919, Azerbaijan prepared another invasion of southern Armenia that was foiled by a rebellion in Nagorno-Karabakh?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/December. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan respecting the District of Zanghezour.

Wikipedia

Article issues

Baberovski is a fringe source,[1] and that just leaves Balayev which is very partisan. Also, why does the wording POV-push that Armenians were "bringing about a 're-Armenianization'" while the Azeris only "launched a campaign to capture Zangezur"? Dallavid (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dallavid, if you had taken the time to check the article history, you’d have seen that it wasn’t me that added the Baberovski and Balayev references to the article [2]. I tried to remove those citations when first publishing the article (I copied the paragraph they were in from the Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia in 1917–1921), however, there were some traces of the old citations (SFN templates) left behind which led User:ActivelyDisinterested to add those references—I’ve since completely removed them. I hope that explanation answers your concern. In regards to your second point, I’m not quite sure what you mean, I simply wrote what reliable sources support. – Olympian ^loquere 08:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removing citations from an article achieves nothing, if you don't also remove the references in the article text. The references are still in the article, and just create an error here Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. I did not add these references to the article, I just fixed the error caused by removing the cite that those references linked too. I have no interest in the article or it's subject. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan respecting the District of Zanghezour/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Olympian (talk · contribs) 07:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) 21:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this shortly. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	No issues found with prose. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I was able to check Der Matossian 2020, Gerwarth & Horne 2012, Gharibyan 2014, and Hille 2010. I found no issues with these references but I was unable to access the other sources. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	`IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.	On hold until Olympian can address my feedback. I wasn't able to do as thorough of a source review as I normally would have but found no issues. The prose is understandable and no issues with NPOV. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you need the one citation in the lead. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph of your lead is only one sentence long. I would either move it up to the first paragraph or make it bigger. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After two months of Armenian governance, the region fell again to local control during the summer rebellions against Armenian rule Is there a time given for this? IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nakhchivan became a protectorate of Soviet Azerbaijan I'd personally change the wiki link here to protectorate for clarity but let me know what you think. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review and feedback, I have implemented all of it. Best, – Olympian ^loquere 05:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 20:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Ruins of the Armenian quarter of Shusha after its destruction by the Azerbaijani army in March 1920.

... that after signing a peace agreement in 1919, Azerbaijan prepared another invasion of southern Armenia which was foiled by a rebellion in Nagorno-Karabakh?

Source: Saparov, Arsène (2014). From conflict to autonomy in the Caucasus: the Soviet Union and the making of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno Karabakh. Routledge.

Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Olympian (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Olympian ^loquere 00:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Article has achieved Good Article status. No issues of copyvio or plagiarism. All sources appear reliable. Hook is interesting and sourced. QPQ is not required. Looks ready to go. Thriley (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Thriley and Olympian: This is a really interesting subject. I have several concerns for WP:DYKCOMPLETE and WP:NPOV before promotion:
  - Until World War I, the Russian Empire and the Ottoman Empire controlled the Caucasus, and both collapsed during the war. At least some mention of this would help readers unfamiliar with the region understand the situation better. Right now, I only see this hinted at with "attaining independence from Russia".
  - Regarding "In 1920, the region [Zangezur] was invaded by units of the Red Army" why is this in the background, when it discusses events events after the agreement is signed?
  - Regarding "In March 1920, the local Armenians revolted with the support of Armenia" the same as above, why include this in the background section?
  - Saparov (2014) mentions militias in Nagorno-Karabakh throughout this conflict, I don't see these mentioned in the Wikipedia article. So when it says "the local Armenians", is this referring a widespread uprising or an ongoing military conflict with those militia groups?
  - The article quotes a historian saying the agreement was "basically a declaration of intent". Can this article expand on that? What is a declaration of intent? Do historians find evidence that either side intended to build any kind of long-term diplomatic relationship from this? The "Aftermath" section seems to imply the opposite.
  - Does the Red Army invasion of Azerbaijan render this agreement moot? It occurs just weeks after the final line of the "Aftermath" section.
- Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, Rjjiii, I implemented your feedback/exceptions. With regard to the Saparov source, I'm not sure of your concern as he describes the local Armenians who were involved in the rebellion as "rebels" from pages 94–95. The [Armenian] militias, by my understanding, largely operated in Zangezur (a neighbouring, albeit isolated, Armenian-controlled province) which was more-less a part of Armenia at the time. – Olympian ^loquere 11:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - That resolved all of my concerns. Thanks! Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjjiii, Thriley, and Olympian: this hook is far over the maximum of 200 characters. Please either trim the content considerably or provide a new hook. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, AirshipJungleman29 – I've reduced the character count after the ellipsis to exactly 200 characters. I hope that this is suitable. Best, – Olympian ^loquere 08:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really—the purpose of WP:DYK200 is to ensure the hook is focused upon the bolded article, whereas this hook seems like it tries to include as mmuch tangential information as possible; still, a promoter has the discretion to trim quite a lot—probably everything after "Armenia"—so I'll restore the tick

. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29, I've condensed it even more and trimmed the tangential bit to make the hook overall more relevant to the bolded article; I feel the 'rebellion' bit is necessary to make the hook more interesting and provide context – let me know if you think it's not useful here. Thanks, – Olympian ^loquere 13:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]